BILLY
J. WILLIAMS United States Attorney, JANICE E. HEBERT
Assistant United States Attorney, DAVID MORADO Regional Chief
Counsel, MARTHA A. BODEN Special Assistant United States
Attorney Social Security Administration Attorneys for
Defendant

OPINION AND ORDER

ANNA
J. BROWN United States District Judge

Plaintiff
Robert W. Strauss seeks judicial review of a final decision
of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(SSA) in which she denied Plaintiff's application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the
Social Security Act. This Court has jurisdiction to review
the Commissioner's final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g).

For the
reasons that follow, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the
Commissioner and DISMISSES this matter.

ADMINISTRATIVE
HISTORY

Plaintiff
filed an application for DIB on May 23, 2012, alleging a
disability onset date of August 31, 2010. Tr.
179.[2]The application was denied initially and on
reconsideration. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a
hearing on October 6, 2014. Tr. 36-65. Plaintiff was
represented at the hearing. Plaintiff and a vocational expert
(VE) testified.

The ALJ
issued a decision on November 10, 2014, in which he found
Plaintiff is not disabled and, therefore, is not entitled to
benefits. Tr. 19-35. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.984(d),
that decision became the final decision of the Commissioner
on March 29, 2016, when the Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff's request for review. Tr. 1-4. See Sims v.
Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106-07 (2000).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
was born on January 26, 1957, and was 57 years old at the
time of the hearing. Tr. 135. Plaintiff completed high school
and has “some college.” Tr. 53. Plaintiff has
past relevant work experience as a branch manager, computer
salesman, sales manager, chief executive officer, and
recruiter. Tr. 30.

Plaintiff
alleges disability due to chronic, severe pain in his left
leg; memory problems; and right-foot arthritis. Tr. 183.

Except
when noted, Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ’s
summary of the medical evidence. After carefully reviewing
the medical records, this Court adopts the ALJ’s
summary of the medical evidence. See Tr. 22-23,
26-29.

STANDARDS

The
initial burden of proof rests on the claimant to establish
disability. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110
(9thCir. 2012). To meet this burden, a claimant
must demonstrate his inability "to engage in any
substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which . . . has
lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of
not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
The ALJ must develop the record when there is ambiguous
evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for proper
evaluation of the evidence. McLeod v. Astrue, 640
F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011)(quoting Mayes v.
Massanari,276 F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th
Cir. 2001)).

The
district court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if
it is based on proper legal standards and the findings are
supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See also Brewes v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th
Cir. 2012). Substantial evidence is “relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Molina, 674 F.3d. at
1110-11 (quoting Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec.
Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009)).
"It is more than a mere scintilla [of evidence] but less
than a preponderance." Id. (citing
Valentine, 574 F.3d at 690).

The ALJ
is responsible for determining credibility, resolving
conflicts in the medical evidence, and resolving ambiguities.
Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th
Cir. 2009). The court must weigh all of the evidence whether
it supports or detracts from the Commissioner's decision.
Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194,
1198 (9th Cir. 2008). Even when the evidence is
susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the
court must uphold the Commissioner’s findings if they
are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.
Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 1051
(9th Cir. 2012). The court may not substitute its
judgment for that of the Commissioner. Widmark v.
Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir.
2006).

DISABILITY
ANALYSIS

I.
The Regulatory Sequential Evaluation

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
Commissioner has developed a five-step sequential inquiry to
determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning
of the Act. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746
(9th Cir. 2007). See also 20 ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.